Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'

[DocM]

That's becaus much of the outrage among the political class and race politics crowd (Sharpton etc.) is manufactured, basically to jinn up black voter turnout in November.

This because the polls have long shown an "enthusiam gap" vs. Republicans - many Democrats are not enthused with Obama for various reasons, so they needed to rev up the base. The Dems are almost certain to lose the Senate, the Reps are virtually a lock to retain the House, and Obama is also in huge trouble.

What to do? Re-ingnite the party base with an emotional issue, and the black community a major power center in that base. Without a high turnout there, Democrats lose..

Think about it; there are hundreds of black youths killed by other black youths but you never hear about them at this scale, but give the race-baiters like Al Sharpton or Jessee Jackson one killed by a hispanic or white (or in this case, both in one package) and you have a [ii]cause celebre[/i].

[DocM]

DocM isnt reserving full judgment, if you think that then you arent following these threads enough. He's doing what ever he cant to paint Trayvon as the criminal,and Zimmerman as the victim.

i'm posting rhetorical responses to patently false presumptions, mis-applied "logic," medical inaccuracies, misunderstandings of wound ballisics, legal falsehoods and other such forum follies. If those corrections aren't advantageous to the politically correct canonization of Trayvon so be it.

[Cute James]

Relevant discussion on this week's 'Real Time with Bill Maher':

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/container/1114/582/LF73V51G41LF67DW

[ylcard]

1) its basket case, no underscore

2) i have no emotion

Stalking isn't aggressive? lol then what is it? sure the hell isnt passive, friendly, sweet, or a nice thing to do. Did this stalking end up in a good way?

only thing im looking at is common sense, this idiot who is a racist, followed this kid just because he was black. PERIOD. He said so himself on the 911 call.

If he hadn't been an ignorant dumbtard none of this would've happened.

If i'm biased in any way its for common sense and logic side. I don't care about any laws, or whatever other silly **** you make up. this guy was a racist and stalked this boy. If the boy decided to attack his stalker than fine, but what do you expect ot happen when someone is stalking someone. But it doesn't make sense that this kid would walk/run away to avoid this creeper, only to become super brave and attack the guy. DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

And i don't follow the media. Only stuff i've seen on this is the stuff i researched to prove DocM is wrong (such as him posting/quoting wrong info on Trayvon such as the pictures that weren't even of him, etc).

DocM isnt reserving full judgment, if you think that then you arent following these threads enough. He's doing what ever he cant to paint Trayvon as the criminal,and Zimmerman as the victim. He refuses other witnesses, logic and common sense, and keeps quoting some shady Witness, and some other stuff that i already stated in this post.

If he was open to the truth then he'd quit bringing up random crap to make the kid look bad. that's not accepting the facts, common sense, and sure the hell isnt "open".

1. What Zimmerman did was not "stalking", and I specifically said "following" someone is not aggressive, I didn't say that "stalking isn't aggressive".

2. "idiot", "racist" = again with the colorful adjectives, focus on facts rather than your emotions. (also, he's not a "kid", he's a young adult, although I can see why you'd use that word to describe him)

3. According to the 911 transcripts, he said "He looks Black", if he was following him just because he was Black, he'd know for a fact that he's Black, he wouldn't say "looks". Nice touch with the "period" thing, really.

4. More insults @Zimmerman, nice.

5. You're biased because you're thinking with your heart instead of your brain, look at the way you describe Zimmerman. At least you admitted that you're biased, that's a start. Now re-examine the current evidence and see how it's far from obvious as you're thinking now.

6. You don't care about any laws. Great, another criminal.

7. I don't make any silly **** up. If you think I am, please address that specific "silly ****" and correct me.

8. Once again "racist" and "stalked", he's neither, and to top it all off now Trayvon (17) is a boy instead of a young football player, eh ?

9. So you're admitting that you know NOTHING about the case (even I, with complete disregard to this case, have bothered to research it in the media) and you've been trying to PROVE someone wrong, rather than get to the bottom of it and seek the truth. You were just looking for stuff to prove your pre-determined conclusion, that's not how it should be done.

10. At the time, the pictures were considered legitimate pictures of him, it was only LATER that they were discovered to be of the wrong Trayvon. Those who do bring it up even after the fact are clearly in the wrong, but I haven't done it and neither did DocM. Also, the same is being done to Zimmerman with his less than flattering picture, and his arrests/wrongdoings in the past.

11. I think we should let DocM state what he thinks, you are in no position to speak for him, considering the fact that you're arguing against him here.

[Colin McGregor]

No, Obama was expressing what many black Americans feel: their colour alone makes some whites view them as criminals.

However, the bigger issue is not Obama's statements, but the ridiculous gun laws in America, especially 'Stand Your Ground'. This legislation allows an individual to shoot practically anyone, provided they believe they feel threatened - shoot first, ask questions later.

As discussed on The Young Turks earlier:

its a cowardly law for cowardly people. ANYONE i know that carries a gun is too ***** to swing a fist /story

[ylcard]

DocM stating lies and mistruths isn't stating his opinion.

and

stalkingpresent participle of stalk (Verb)

Verb:

• Pursue or approach stealthily: "a cat stalking a bird".
  
• Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: "the fan stalked the actor".
  

oh wee gee wow, how will this be twisted? Surely the think captain can come up with something.

Feel free to provide counter-arguments, that is, if you're done being an ******* ?

http://law.yourdictionary.com/stalking

A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc. See also cyberstalking and harassment

Also, before you cut through to the insulting cheap shots aimed at me/DocM let me tell you that just as sending letters doesn't necessarily mean you're "stalking" someone, neither does FOLLOWING someone. The key here is persistence and bad intentions.

[DocM]

DocM thinks we are quite far from a legal case that can hold up to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in US courts.

This isn 't a civil case where a 51% legal certainty is enough; you need a 99% certainty based on much more than feelings and a desire to somehow right the past wrongs of others, and the first presumption under the law is that Zimmerman is innocent and has to be proven guilty by facts. Not emotion. Not political correctness or expediency. Facts.

The key to proving Zimmerman has criminal culpability is who hit who first? Who was following who etc. is incidental - following is NOT legally stalking or illegal, and neither party in the "follow" is justified in making first physical contact. The answer is that until the forensics come back no one has a clue, and we still may not know then. What we do know is that Trayvon was witnessed to be on top of Zimmerman, pounding on him.

As to Zimmerman's injuries; he had some, otherwise there would not have been a need for him to be treated at the scene. The enhanced video frame posted by Daily Caller shows a long wound on the back of his scalp and that he had been cleaned up (it was bigvenough to be a bleeder.) I have yet to use my (rather high end) video hardware and software filters on this footage , but will post it when I finish. Nevertheless - Zimmerman's parents have said there are plans to releasing his medical reports which should clarify that issue.

Then there is the Stand Your Ground law. Most all of these allow you to fire if under a significant attack that puts you in fear of serious injury, death or rape. Being on your back, straddled by a 6' tall MAN (he was only months from adulthood) and having your head used as ground zero would qualify in most anyones book given how easy it is to get a brain injury from a beating, so why not here?

Granted we have the first contact issue as regards the SYG application, but if that remains uncertain it takes us right back to 'reasonable doubt' and juries can't convict if that's present.

Also; much has been made of the cop putting a suggestion to prosecute on the arrest form and the States Attorney denying it. This happens because cops are not generally lawyers and don't know as much law as people think they do.

Ex: as I've posted here Michigan allows the open carry of firearms - unconcealed - and has since 1947. In spite of this a few time a year people openly carrying get arrested by some cop, charged, then released as soon as the Prosecutor or a Judge realized the error. It got so bad a few years ago the State Police Commander had to issue a formal notice to be read at Roll Call 's, handed out and copies posted at every station. That this could happen with SYG too is no surprise.

[Growled Member]

That's becaus much of the outrage among the political class and race politics crowd (Sharpton etc.) is manufactured, basically to jinn up black voter turnout in November.

This because the polls have long shown an "enthusiam gap" vs. Republicans - many Democrats are not enthused with Obama for various reasons, so they needed to rev up the base. The Dems are almost certain to lose the Senate, the Reps are virtually a lock to retain the House, and Obama is also in huge trouble.

What to do? Re-ingnite the party base with an emotional issue, and the black community a major power center in that base. Without a high turnout there, Democrats lose..

Think about it; there are hundreds of black youths killed by other black youths but you never hear about them at this scale, but give the race-baiters like Al Sharpton or Jessee Jackson one killed by a hispanic or white (or in this case, both in one package) and you have a [ii]cause celebre[/i].

Good point and one that makes sense. Otherwise, there is no sense to all this "outrage."

[DocM]

Good point and one that makes sense. Otherwise, there is no sense to all this "outrage."

I used to be a Democrat, even participated in campaigns, so I know how they think. Their increasing use of divisive warfare starting in the 70's is one of the reasons I quit.

[Skin]

Usually the goal when finding a jury is to find people that have little to no knowledge of the case at hand. They also will be privy to information that the general public still doesn't have. Many times what the public thinks is evidence isn't always the case when it reaches the actual jury. So no, this case still isnt being tried in the public opinion court. Hell look here at this thread and any other around the net, you still have two very strong polar sides to this case. So the idea that this is already over is wrong.

You are so full of it.

Reality tends to disprove your green field views of life... and while it appears you want to argue the opposite for arguments sake, and come up with theories to strengthen your viewpoint, it flies in the face of what is happening.

This case is indeed being tried in the public, or haven't you noticed the media frenzy, potential riot inducing idiots, hooded vigils, Congress getting in the act, invasion of privacy, or the very public bounty placed on the dude's head. So yeah, you go ahead and suggest it isn't being tried in the public forum, but I can't tell if you are honestly misguided and not seeing reality, or willfully arguing a stance with no merit or truth to cause more 'conversation'.

Also, go ahead and find a jury not tainted by this media frenzy - as you stated 'Hell look here at this thread and any other around the net, you still have two very strong polar sides to this case.'. Seeing that sides have formed, what hope does this guy have for a real fair review and trial... seeing that they already decided NOT to charge him based on the facts they had and the investigation they did... and it wasn't until the PUBLIC cried out and nailed him as a murderer (without access to facts), that they are trying to re-review everything and find a reason to charge him (other agencies brought in, etc).

Wouldn't doubt that they try a civil suit if a real charge/trial falls through.

Not already tried in public... that is laughable.

[mudslag]

Feel free to provide counter-arguments, that is, if you're done being an ******* ?

http://law.yourdictionary.com/stalking

Also, before you cut through to the insulting cheap shots aimed at me/DocM let me tell you that just as sending letters doesn't necessarily mean you're "stalking" someone, neither does FOLLOWING someone. The key here is persistence and bad intentions.

Did you even read what you quoted?

A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc. See also cyberstalking and harassment

Again following or the fear of being followed lies with the person being followed. You may follow someone and you may claim no ill intent but you can't speak for the person you are following. You have no basis to make the claim that they weren't feeling anxiety or fear from you following them. That's why it's a law geared more towards the one being followed then the one doing the following.

[DocM]

Did you even read what you quoted?

Did you? "....repeated and persistent following...." means more than once, not a singular event. That's what you have to get through in the first part of the statute before the "....so as to...." part can be applied. Stalking is all about a series of harassing or threatening events.

[mudslag]

Did you? "....repeated and persistent following...." means more than once, not a singular event. That's what you have to get through in the first part of the statute before the "....so as to...." part can be applied.

Let's look at that again

A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc. See also cyberstalking and harassment

"Generally" is the key word there which implies that "generally" isn't always the case as well. Also given that the definition also carries on to say "or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed", that also implies that it's not limited to "generally repeated".

[DocM]

Let's look at that again

>

"Generally" is the key word there which implies that "generally" isn't always the case as well.

And that is NOT how the Florida statute reads as "generally" isn't in it. The specific Florida law is?Section 784.048 (2009) -

Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

You can re-quote that definition of yours until you're blue in the face, but the Florida statutes wording that matters. It says quite specifically, not generally, that it must first be a repeating behavior before the rest applies.

[mudslag]

And that is NOT how the Florida statute reads as "generally" isn't in it. The specific Florida law is Section 784.048 (2009) -

You can re-quote that definition of yours until you're blue in the face, but the Florida statutes wording that matters. It says quite specifically, not generally, that it must first be a repeating behavior before the rest applies.

That law also includes a "Course of conduct" section.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose.

Just so you know that definition wasnt mine, Inclined posted it which you had no problem backing up till I pointed out that by that definition alone still included more then the "repeated" aspect. You quickly dropped that argument then moved on to the Florida legal definition.

[Bryan R.]

Really? So now it's considered stalking to follow a suspicious person? :rolleyes:

[DocM]

According to him, yes!

For "however short" to apply Zimmerman would have had to pursue, broken off, then started a second pursuit. That assumes facts not in evidence and as yet not even suggested. Forensics may change that, but for now a second pursuit is rank speculation.

[Bryan R.]

I better be careful walking behind people on the sidewalk now. Who knows, maybe they'll have a restraining order put on me.

[mudslag]

For "however short" to apply Zimmerman would have had to pursue, broken off, then started a second pursuit. That assumes facts not in evidence and as yet not even suggested. Forensics may change that, but for now a second pursuit is rank speculation.

It could be argued that when he was asked to break off pursuit and said ok, then went ahead anyway that could be seen as second pursuit.

[DocM]

That is a bigger stretch than the rubber band that could have saved the Tiranic.

[mudslag]

That is a bigger stretch than the rubber band that could have saved the Tiranic.

Just have to wait and see what the prosecutor decides.

[Bryan R.]

Just have to wait and see what the jury decides you mean...

[mudslag]

Just have to wait and see what the jury decides you mean...

Not necessarily, might not be any trial at all, depends if the special prosecutor for this decides to file charges. Just for the record, you don't have to have a trial by jury, you can opt for a bench trial in which the judge is the deciding factor, though that is generally not the case.

[linsook]

Let's look at that again

"Generally" is the key word there which implies that "generally" isn't always the case as well. Also given that the definition also carries on to say "or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed", that also implies that it's not limited to "generally repeated".

A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc. See also cyberstalking and harassment.

You're suppose to comprehend it like this:

A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming or a form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. The conjunction 'or' was to link an alternative motive to actual harming from persistent following to an intent of instilling fear and fear of harm from persistent following.

[libertas83]

Following someone is not stalking and if we limit it to that then that narrow-minded thinking will get more people killed or hurt. We already have a problem where people don't act to stop a crime or help someone and those few who do, usually have to follow a bit to check things out. If it is your neighborhood and you see someone doing something suscipious you have to decide if you are going to call the cops or not. Alot of times, you might not want to do that without knowing more about what is going on so you follow a bit. Or, you follow so that you can have details to give to police so someone does not get away.

Police and 911 will advise to not follow to prevent something from happening because they don't you to put yourself at risk and they can't ask you to do that. If they did, they could get sued for not warning you. It is a judgement call a person has to make themselves. If you see a guy taking a little girl by force, you can call police and report the crime, but if you can't give them any details about the car he is driving off in or where he is taking the girl, you are putting the girl at risk of never being found. So, you put yourself at risk to help.